No, no, and no again. The person used a term which has been pounded for quite some. Women being ostracized and kept out of technical jobs, woman making 70% of what a man makes, men run around raping women at will, etc.. The error could have been as intentional as not, but I'm saying intentional. It benefits 2 separate agendas when people spew that type of nonsense. Most importantly, my correction was RIGHT!
You move right to the insults and name calling, which shows who is the person actually grasping for attention and attempting to impress people.
If _you_ are so daft as to believe and repeat appeals to emotion and red herrings, that is your fault. Some of us are stronger thinkers than that. Like I said, you can't debate the points so troll with fallacies. Cya
Half honesty all around eh? The wrong people have ILLEGAL access to guns, not LAWFUL access to guns. Check your facts there pal, because you are obviously missing quite a few in addition to trusting bullshit sources because they fit an agenda, over the official Law enforcement information.
You claim I have no answer, yet I gave a perfectly valid answer. We accept the risks associated with being able to defend ourselves and not be dependent on the Government. You don't like that answer, so you are choosing to pretend it does not exist. You can't debate my position, so claim that I must move to the back of the bus and that I am ranting. So in addition to delusional, you have just demonstrated a high degree of immaturity, irrationality.
If you would like to debate my points rationally and logically I'll be happy to listen. As is, I'm thinking you are nothing but a troll.
The first link points to the FBI's web site, not nowhere. I gave it because that would be the official location of statistics on mass shootings. Show me where a law enforcement agency backs the number claimed by the person I responded to. There is no such number on the site, nor on the DOJ site, etc... That number is only available on Reddit and only because a set of people uses statistics to conflate the number.
Before I point out the problem let me point out what happened the day of the San Bernardino shooting. Within 30 seconds of the shooting, there was reporting on _every_ major new station that this was a 2nd amendment problem. Within 5 minutes, they had blamed conservatives (especially those dirty Libertarians who are despised by the Government and Media) for the shooting, and claimed that encryption needed back doors for Government snooping. The lie about the Paris terrorist attack being planned over encrypted channels was repeated several dozen times.
For 4 hours I listened to the puppet media claim that Guns were the problem and that _more_ gun control was necessary, and those libertarians and conservatives were a danger to the world.
Not one time in the 4 hours was it mentioned that California has THE strongest gun regulations in the country. Chicago was not mentioned either, which is a "gun free" city and county but has an incredibly high rate of gun violence sporting over 10 shootings a day (and over 1 dead per day) in a place where guns have been banned. At least for the citizens that abide by the law.
Within an hour of the Police finding and killing the 2 shooters we had their names. We also knew that his wife was Pakistani and the interesting circumstances for them meeting. We knew that she dropped their 6month off at a relative's house, an a few hours later knew that they had homemade weapons, links to at least one Jihadist terrorist group from Facebook posts, and attempted to wipe their hard drives.
For TWO MORE DAYS Politicians and Puppet media (*NBC*, *FOX*, *ABC*, NPR, *CNN*) claimed that the problem was home grown libertarians who owned guns, and facts were ignored to support that narrative. If the word "Muslim" was mentioned it was followed up immediately with Libertarians and/or how we lack gun laws.
So you post a number as if it has special meaning, and ignore the wise words of Mark Twain. "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics." You also ignore that the source of that number is a Reddit group! Do you also believe every post on Slashdot and Facebook, if it looks official? Why can we not find that same information from the FBI?
Well, that would be due to the fact that the number is bullshit. According to the FBI there have been 21 mass shootings this year, not 355. A longer term study performed by that same Law enforcement agency shows that the trend has been declining, not rising. The Narrative you post works because "shooting" is intentionally conflated to appeal to the emotions and make it appear that these are all San Bernardino like events.
Damage of any kind to _innocent_ people is wrong, but remember that crime is not a one way street. Crime does not stop magically when guns are banned, and if you somehow hold such a delusion you can look at the UK and Australia for both long term and short term crime trends with unarmed citizens. Banning guns does one thing. It removes people's ability to defend themselves, making them completely dependent on the Government for defense.
For the citizens to be able to defend themselves we accept a certain level of risk. The Rights of the people to defend themselves is in the Constitution very intentionally. Nobody stops _you_ from defending yourself or throwing your life to the Government. You currently can not legally demand that others do the same, and hopefully you never will.
"At will" does not mean what you are implying. Wrongful terminations are quite possible, though obviously difficult to prove without extreme circumstances. This guy has extreme circumstances, and a politician on record saying they fired the responsible employee. Libel and Slander are also possible given this situation, so as a hunch the State of GA will be handing this guy a big pile of hush money^W^W^W^Wcheck for damages.
I get that reading is hard, and harder when it's legal stuff but you should give it a try sometime. You have to work for this one, but links are already posted in this thread.
To my IANAL eye the EFF claims could be valid,. Google's response avoids or ignores the allegations and tosses out a few red herrings for people to chew on. I have not tested the EFF's claims but I'm guessing that they have more than speculation backing their complaint. The Google response is carefully worded, leaving lots of maneuvering room if they are found to be in violation.
Google is not some altruistic company parading around in a halo. At the same time, they are not as evil as another IIT company that comes to mind. (At least that we know of). Given that there has been prior incidents I'll wait for the evidence to play out o this one.
History is not subjective. The fact that a cotton gin existed at a given time frame, and society could or could not benefit from that technology is not subjective. If anyone claims that cotton was dirt cheap and allowed for cheap textiles in 1595, they are lying. The factors did not exist to make that possible. If you believe them over history, you are plainly an idiot.
History shows plainly that the average family could not afford to have a wet nurse, and the nutrients in baby formula were not enough to support healthy children. People were selling cow milk with flour and other additives in the very late 1800s and early 1900s, and look at infant mortality due to those concoctions. People that went that route had no choice, and paid the price for it.
We lacked the cheap rubber materials and nutrients to make formula a safe staple until the late 40s, and even then it was extremely expensive. Most families breast fed, which required mom to stay home.
If mom must stay home home in order to raise healthy children, it is wrong to claim that she stayed at home due to oppression and a lack of choice. She did have a choice and still does have a choice. In fact many women were not interested in families and became business owners and entrepreneurs. More not subject history for you to find. It was not oppression that kept women out of medical school, it was basic economics. If it was gender oppression our society would be packed to the brim with wealthy male doctors, yet the overwhelming majority of people are NOT doctors and NOT wealthy.
That is just a start of history to discount that narrative, because there is plenty more history which discounts the narrative.
If you are really so daft as to believe that history is subjective you are mentally handicapped. I'm guessing that you are trolling, but you should seek professional help if not.
Have you given up on the idea that women stayed at home 40 years ago because they needed to breastfeed?
Why would any sane person deny what is historical fact, if not for an agenda? (That is a rhetorical question)
By your definition are engineering firms also "state run" because their work is subject to inspection and their staff need to be licensed by the state? What about electrical contractors? Law firms? Food processing plants?
You don't understand what a Free Market is or what it looks like. I gave the sources, do the work. If you believe Milton Friedman was wrong I'm happy to listen, but you can't discuss the material.
Everything else you write is trolling, so the conversation is over.
Australia has 7% of the population of the US, so of course your problems would be less frequent. That is a statistical normal and I would not expect otherwise. With the exception of gang and drug related crimes, any shooting makes national news in the US. Within 30 seconds of a report of a gunshot, we have every journalist, politician, and all their cousins immediately blaming and attacking the 2nd amendment on every media outlet possible.
Both sides ignore each others arguments, but I believe much of the pro gun stubbornness is distrust for a corrupt system who immediately attacks citizens owning guns any time something happens while ignoring everything else. Things like mental health, economic problems, or even the source of the guns which are frequently acquired through a black market so repealing the 2nd amendment would have no impact. Let alone, the fact that there are countries who's citizens are way better armed who have less gun crime.
Australia has plenty of problems, so be careful with that finger pointing stuff.
You do not know what a rhetorical question is, and I really don't feel like having to teach you so I won't. Next, whether or not I was around 40+ years ago will not change history. There are countless magazines, newspapers, books, recorded TV shows, etc.. etc... you can use to validate my claim and learn history.
For the third time you are inventing your own argument instead of addressing what I stated very clearly. I said that women have choice and have had choices in careers so the narrative that they have been oppressed out of the job market is simply a fabrication. I stated that society is measuring a woman's success drastically different today from 40 years ago, because today the family is not measured or mentioned.
Finally, you ask for clarification on something instead of inventing your own definition or argument. What do I mean by the State raising kids? Simple really. Parenting time should be equal or better than the State, which would be the combined time of school and daycare. This is especially true for younger kids (1-15/16). Parenting time is not the same as being a guard dog, so don't revert back to inventing things. Women today are pressured into going back to work as quickly as possible after giving birth, meaning that they are giving up parenting and paying the State to parent for them. You claim that they are not run by the State, but who passes and enforces all of the regulations for daycare? The State does run daycare, just like they run schools. So if parenting time is less than time the State spends with the children, the State is raising the child. The parent is racing to cook dinner, clean up, pay bills, fix things that are broken, etc.. This gives an extremely limited demonstration of "life" for the kid, and does not grant very much time for life lessons. In the single parent game (which has grown massively in 4 decades) it's much worse because the parent will have someone competing for that little bit of free time to be a parent.
Unfortunately you go right back to inventing your own version of history for home schooling. Home schooling started because the State run systems are a constant failure (past and present tense). When a parent was home with the kid it was easier to tolerate because of _parenting_. Once both parents were both away from home 45-50 hours a week on average (commute time included) that _parenting_ time was gone and the State run school had no buff. (Of course the single parent family had no 2nd parent). The 4% increase in home schooling is because of good parenting, but came about because the State run services used by the majority are beyond atrocious. 40 years ago that percentage could be zero because the parents were raising the children, not the State.
Oddly you agree with a few of my "concerns" but don't admit that they are real and have been for decades. Economics is a monster to tackle, but you could start by reading Milton Friedman (pick a book, they are all worth while). He was explaining things like why politicians would not fix immigration in the early 70s, and predicted our current trajectory pretty well. He also lays out numerous fixes. You are right that we are far apart on both causes and solutions, but at least I can claim that my opinion is derived from 5 decades of study and education. (Back to your not so rhetorical question "yes" I was around, "yes" I am a parent (met and know thousands of them too)).
First, don't attempt to conflate the red scare with the US society beginning to crumble. I agreed that people started to warn about what was happening in terms of society. "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" was released, we saw how Nixon behaved (illegally) and nothing happened, we had leaks about Operation Mockingbird and MK-Ultra and nobody was held accountable for those programs. We had articles and people starting to warn about the deregulation allowing the start of media monopolization, and the realization that the Vietnam war was not some altruistic action by the US. Those things impacted our society, the Red Scare was (and is) an external threat.
Next, women do have the same choices as men and have had them. I provided numerous reasons why things were different 40+ years ago and stated that the narrative portraying it as a white man's paradise who kept everyone else subjugated is not true. I gave the easiest way for people to determine that the narrative is false, by looking at the proliferation of a single item in today's grocery store.
I also gave a biological difference why there was no choice historically for the woman, except to stay home and maintain the family.
I never stated that women must stay home and have babies, I stated correctly that historically it was normal and honorable. I never said a woman must have kids, I gave reason to ask "Is it better for the state to raise the kid or the parents?" when the choice is made to be a parent. I never said a person was not allowed happiness. I implied that not long ago we understood that sacrifice was a relatively normal thing. Many people still believe those things and many woman _choose_ to stay home and raise the kids for exactly the reasons I described.
So who exactly is not giving women a choice? My narrative includes family as a valid and noble career, and society matched that narrative less than half a century ago. Today society only measures a women by her career and wealth.
It _should_ bother you that your argument requires fabricated narrative like ~women have no choices~ and ~force 1/2 the population to make babies~ in order to have any validity. It _should_ bother you that history and biology must be ignored to support your arguments, and it should bother you that you can't differentiate present and past tense to maintain your position.
That was simply the time at which domestic abuse was acknowledged in our society. Remember, it wasn't until about that time that laws were changed that made it impossible for a man to rape his wife in many states, etc. You're complaining about social progress here.
Amazing how selective memory can be, and how simply you could fix your memory with a small amount of reading. For clarity I am not complaining, I am demonstrating that based on history there is an alternative perspective that does not match the narrative people are told and repeat.
Correcting your complete untrue statement first: Society acknowledged domestic abuse for thousands of years, there was not some revelation that happened in the 70s. It used to be handled differently, and society also acknowledged that abuse was also something a woman could do.
What you completely ignored: The 1970s saw every State pass no fault divorce laws, and advertisements for how great it is for women and kids to be in a divorced marriage. TV shows and advertising told everyone how easy it was for a women to get 1/2 of the assets, custody of the kids, and revenue from child support and alimony just by saying "I am not happy". Not only that, but it was portrayed that everyone became better off after the divorce (happier, wealthier, lots of hotties in the bedroom, etc...). The reality was that the average middle class family who went through divorce turned into two lower middle class households (at least one closer to poverty in many cases), with a large percentage of the assets going to lawyers and government agencies. Rates for psychological treatment for children sky rocketed,and the amount of money handed out by Government for aid programs (Welfare/Food Stamps) increased.
During that same time period, men did not file for divorce because they were unhappy. They would have been laughed out of court because a man was supposed to be a provider, happiness is not a requirement. Men did not run to court for having an abusive wife, he would have been humiliated into silence for being such a weakling (and today still is). A guy would not abuse his wife, for fear his neighbors would beat his ass for being abusive. The trade off from society handling the offense vs. the Government certainly does not fully favor the position of the Government.
Birth rates are well below 2.1 and have been steadily dropping for decades. This means that population is DECLINING. Calling someone a moron when you can not comprehend basic definitions for words is laughable. If you were confused by previous statements you should try harder to read things like "Do the math and calculate how fast it collapses when you have double the population in retirement as you do in more productive areas of society.". Read what is written, not what you want to see. If two or more syllable words are difficult for you, stay on Facebook where you will be in your own league.
Better for society != better for "me". The majority of divorces in the 60s - 80s were not because all these men became abusive. It was because people were brainwashed into thinking their own happiness was more important than anything else. Further, the only way to get happiness in this brainwashing is through buying lots of stuff.
Instead of seeing what you have been brainwashed to believe, actually do some work and use your noggin.
Were people 40 years ago worried that the US was collapsing? That is about the time that people warned of the brain washing going on, so yeah and what they were concerned with has come about. You keep convincing yourself that "ME ME ME" is the best philosophy instead of reading history and having knowledge of the result.
As a start, stop lying about self sufficiency requiring working for someone else for 40+ hours a week for decades. Stop believing that the only reward in life is money. You won't, but I'll still point it out.
Seriously, are you mentally disabled? Do you believe that society was always declining like it is today? Are you attempting to fail to understand basic math in addition to basic and very recent history? How long will society last if families are 1 child and 2 adults exactly? Do the math and calculate how fast it collapses when you have double the population in retirement as you do in more productive areas of society.
Just exactly why do you ask asinine questions that do not modify the facts and opinion being expressed? Those are all rhetorical questions for you to chew on, not to answer here because you lack the intellect and/or honesty to do so.
I know the material, but your explanation is off the mark (perhaps because you are attempting to be politically correct?). The study was related to how men and women choose partners. Men did not focus on the woman's profession, class, or stature to marry. Doctors married waitresses, teachers, bartenders, or other doctors, and of course women without jobs.
Women do not function the same, and tend to date and marry only the same or better social class. A woman doctor will not normally date a male who is not a doctor, and a woman software engineer will not normally date a welder.
That is a symptom of the brain washing we have been under for nearly half a century where material wealth and "self" is the most important things in society.
As a veteran and a person who has worked in IT for Government, Medical,Insurance, Automotive, DOD, and Telecom, I say you are simply wrong. Medical care in the US is not a private market, it's a government controlled monopoly. Having the direct authority for care, like the VA, is simply putting the biggest turd on the top of the pile.
Women being forced and duped into thinking that they have to work in order to be a person is entirely socially generated hysteria and stigma. 40 years ago women did not have "careers" in a workplace because there was little in the way of formula. Meaning if the woman did not stay home and feed the kid, they died of starvation. Since the woman is the only parent with the ability to make milk it made sense for her to make her career in the home. It used to be normal for a woman to help the family save money by being a good cook and manage the budget at home, to sew and knit when time allowed, and to keep the family healthy by keeping the house in good shape. Paying people to cook for you, clean for you, and raise your kids for you COSTS MONEY.
In the last 40 years we there has been a social transition brought about by mass marketing campaigns filled to overflowing with psychological manipulation (we used to call this brain washing). In the 1960s a woman was working because she either could not attract a husband or because her husband could not provide what the family needed. There was sympathy for that poor woman forced into the workplace. Her poor kids would be forced on other people and lack responsible parents at home.
Look where we are today. A society which is slowly crumbling around your feet. Population is declining, wealth disparity is growing at an amazing rate, and people can't tell the truth from a lie. It is trendy to neglect your kids and make them someone else's problem, because family has become disposable.
Women have choice, but have not had choice for as long as idiots like to pretend in order to fill an agenda.. You disliking what they choose does not in any way indicate that they have no choice it indicates that you are simply an ignorant tool.
The medical system is absolutely not market based, unless you are attempting to change the definition of market to be "marketing" and psychological manipulation.
I'm not a full on anarchist because the Government has a role in my opinion. The role is extremely limited in my mind, but does exist. That said, the Government has caused nearly everything else to fail for all but a select few. The Government regulation system is a forced at gunpoint monopoly. If you want to play you have to pay, and if you are not wanted in the game the rules will change to ensure you can't play. This has happened repeatedly through history, and more and more in the last few decades. If you want to sell a widget you need to pay a registration fee to be a widget seller. As soon as your widget cuts into richguy's profits, you not only need to pay for the license but you have to have a person on staff with government certification for widget knowledge, and that certification may take 19 years and specialized precursory degrees to obtain.
The government's role here should be binary. Pass a law allowing or denying the activity. My desires get measured into that decision, but beyond providing the legal status the Government should have no role. The "why" of that is explained very simply. Bob puts out a splice that causes a problem. Do you think anyone else will be buying Bob's splicing? If the market had it's way Bob would have to bake bread or something for a living, not splice genes. However, if the Government certified him Bob would be able to continue on his merry way. It was not Bob's fault, it was a faulty regulation that caused the problem. Bob didn't have the newly required government certified piece of paper, and didn't have the right member of staff which is now in regulations. Form GOV330033-GENE-112L must now be used which saves any confusion for people like "Bob" in the future, right?
Same ole same ole won't make things better, it will only ensure that there is no real market would ever exist.
As to whether or not this should be legal? My well educated opinion says "HELL NO!". Enhanced genetics will ensure that the rich folks get babies that would have the ghosts of Himmler and Hitler creaming all over themselves. "Rich" babies will all be 6' or taller kids with 130+ IQs and the "trendy" bits (blond or brunette, busty or well endowed, blue or green eyed, always tan complexion, etc.. ) included. Anyone below this threshold will be filthy poor people who can't afford the "therapy". Look at how well cosmetic surgery has been for society as a whole, and how the altruistic roots have turned into the cesspool we know and love today.
Yeah, vulnerabilities cost money. If you get hacked you could be put out of business. That means that if you care about your customers and want to stay in business you pay for the right tools and people to ensure you are secure.
How does a Government who can't handle basic things like medical care for Veterans have a better chance of protecting you than a private company who will be out of a job if they are not effective? What is your repercussion against the DHS when they fail and you go under? What penalties will the Government face when it's found that they simply take tax money and claim to scan, but never ran a scanner? Do you really believe that you will get your day in court and have recovery within your lifetime when your business fails? (Ask an American Indian about their experiences with timely recovery of damages).
People demanding "more" government are simply lunatics, often demanding more because they get "free" stuff for now. I can not comprehend the level of delusion required for people to believe that contrary to everything the Government does or has done, we are better off with the Government monopolizing services.
I have no idea who your generalization is supposed to be covering. "Most" people would fall into the original comment. People who are too brainwashed to do anything, or care about anything, that the media does not tell them to do, or care, about. Mindless drones who sit staring at a 2.5x3" screen occasionally banging it with their thumbs. Reading 100 character strings for their life philosophy, and shouting down anyone that disagrees with their 140 character and 2 meme opinion.
I wish that was a scary exaggeration by Alex Jones or something, but sadly it's not. I have a kid in the UC system, relatives in U of Michigan Ann Arbor, and the last few places I work has built in social media systems with as many SJWs as you can find on Reddit's worst thread.
There is a minority of people that read and study beyond main stream media. Those people were pissed about the NSA dirt but had ideas ahead of time that it was happening. Those people were pissed about torture sites but had suspicions. We knew the wars in the middle east were based on fabrications, but we know what Eurasia is. There may be a majority of this extreme minority who would be frightened to speak publicly (I'm a skeptic but would be okay with this generalization).
Slashdot Mirror
No, no, and no again. The person used a term which has been pounded for quite some. Women being ostracized and kept out of technical jobs, woman making 70% of what a man makes, men run around raping women at will, etc.. The error could have been as intentional as not, but I'm saying intentional. It benefits 2 separate agendas when people spew that type of nonsense. Most importantly, my correction was RIGHT!
You move right to the insults and name calling, which shows who is the person actually grasping for attention and attempting to impress people.
You can troll elsewhere, troll.
Are you really attempting to claim "clueless, doddering elitist" is sexist? Good grief you SJWs get more idiotic every day.
If _you_ are so daft as to believe and repeat appeals to emotion and red herrings, that is your fault. Some of us are stronger thinkers than that. Like I said, you can't debate the points so troll with fallacies. Cya
Half honesty all around eh? The wrong people have ILLEGAL access to guns, not LAWFUL access to guns. Check your facts there pal, because you are obviously missing quite a few in addition to trusting bullshit sources because they fit an agenda, over the official Law enforcement information.
You claim I have no answer, yet I gave a perfectly valid answer. We accept the risks associated with being able to defend ourselves and not be dependent on the Government. You don't like that answer, so you are choosing to pretend it does not exist. You can't debate my position, so claim that I must move to the back of the bus and that I am ranting. So in addition to delusional, you have just demonstrated a high degree of immaturity, irrationality.
If you would like to debate my points rationally and logically I'll be happy to listen. As is, I'm thinking you are nothing but a troll.
The first link points to the FBI's web site, not nowhere. I gave it because that would be the official location of statistics on mass shootings. Show me where a law enforcement agency backs the number claimed by the person I responded to. There is no such number on the site, nor on the DOJ site, etc... That number is only available on Reddit and only because a set of people uses statistics to conflate the number.
Before I point out the problem let me point out what happened the day of the San Bernardino shooting. Within 30 seconds of the shooting, there was reporting on _every_ major new station that this was a 2nd amendment problem. Within 5 minutes, they had blamed conservatives (especially those dirty Libertarians who are despised by the Government and Media) for the shooting, and claimed that encryption needed back doors for Government snooping. The lie about the Paris terrorist attack being planned over encrypted channels was repeated several dozen times.
For 4 hours I listened to the puppet media claim that Guns were the problem and that _more_ gun control was necessary, and those libertarians and conservatives were a danger to the world.
Not one time in the 4 hours was it mentioned that California has THE strongest gun regulations in the country. Chicago was not mentioned either, which is a "gun free" city and county but has an incredibly high rate of gun violence sporting over 10 shootings a day (and over 1 dead per day) in a place where guns have been banned. At least for the citizens that abide by the law.
Within an hour of the Police finding and killing the 2 shooters we had their names. We also knew that his wife was Pakistani and the interesting circumstances for them meeting. We knew that she dropped their 6month off at a relative's house, an a few hours later knew that they had homemade weapons, links to at least one Jihadist terrorist group from Facebook posts, and attempted to wipe their hard drives.
For TWO MORE DAYS Politicians and Puppet media (*NBC*, *FOX*, *ABC*, NPR, *CNN*) claimed that the problem was home grown libertarians who owned guns, and facts were ignored to support that narrative. If the word "Muslim" was mentioned it was followed up immediately with Libertarians and/or how we lack gun laws.
So you post a number as if it has special meaning, and ignore the wise words of Mark Twain. "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics." You also ignore that the source of that number is a Reddit group! Do you also believe every post on Slashdot and Facebook, if it looks official? Why can we not find that same information from the FBI?
Well, that would be due to the fact that the number is bullshit. According to the FBI there have been 21 mass shootings this year, not 355. A longer term study performed by that same Law enforcement agency shows that the trend has been declining, not rising. The Narrative you post works because "shooting" is intentionally conflated to appeal to the emotions and make it appear that these are all San Bernardino like events.
Damage of any kind to _innocent_ people is wrong, but remember that crime is not a one way street. Crime does not stop magically when guns are banned, and if you somehow hold such a delusion you can look at the UK and Australia for both long term and short term crime trends with unarmed citizens. Banning guns does one thing. It removes people's ability to defend themselves, making them completely dependent on the Government for defense.
For the citizens to be able to defend themselves we accept a certain level of risk. The Rights of the people to defend themselves is in the Constitution very intentionally. Nobody stops _you_ from defending yourself or throwing your life to the Government. You currently can not legally demand that others do the same, and hopefully you never will.
It is a quote from the new South Park episode you morons with mod points.
"At will" does not mean what you are implying. Wrongful terminations are quite possible, though obviously difficult to prove without extreme circumstances. This guy has extreme circumstances, and a politician on record saying they fired the responsible employee. Libel and Slander are also possible given this situation, so as a hunch the State of GA will be handing this guy a big pile of hush money^W^W^W^Wcheck for damages.
I get that reading is hard, and harder when it's legal stuff but you should give it a try sometime. You have to work for this one, but links are already posted in this thread.
To my IANAL eye the EFF claims could be valid,. Google's response avoids or ignores the allegations and tosses out a few red herrings for people to chew on. I have not tested the EFF's claims but I'm guessing that they have more than speculation backing their complaint. The Google response is carefully worded, leaving lots of maneuvering room if they are found to be in violation.
Google is not some altruistic company parading around in a halo. At the same time, they are not as evil as another IIT company that comes to mind. (At least that we know of). Given that there has been prior incidents I'll wait for the evidence to play out o this one.
History is not subjective. The fact that a cotton gin existed at a given time frame, and society could or could not benefit from that technology is not subjective. If anyone claims that cotton was dirt cheap and allowed for cheap textiles in 1595, they are lying. The factors did not exist to make that possible. If you believe them over history, you are plainly an idiot.
History shows plainly that the average family could not afford to have a wet nurse, and the nutrients in baby formula were not enough to support healthy children. People were selling cow milk with flour and other additives in the very late 1800s and early 1900s, and look at infant mortality due to those concoctions. People that went that route had no choice, and paid the price for it.
We lacked the cheap rubber materials and nutrients to make formula a safe staple until the late 40s, and even then it was extremely expensive. Most families breast fed, which required mom to stay home.
If mom must stay home home in order to raise healthy children, it is wrong to claim that she stayed at home due to oppression and a lack of choice. She did have a choice and still does have a choice. In fact many women were not interested in families and became business owners and entrepreneurs. More not subject history for you to find. It was not oppression that kept women out of medical school, it was basic economics. If it was gender oppression our society would be packed to the brim with wealthy male doctors, yet the overwhelming majority of people are NOT doctors and NOT wealthy.
That is just a start of history to discount that narrative, because there is plenty more history which discounts the narrative.
If you are really so daft as to believe that history is subjective you are mentally handicapped. I'm guessing that you are trolling, but you should seek professional help if not.
PC stands for Pussy Crushing!
Have you given up on the idea that women stayed at home 40 years ago because they needed to breastfeed?
Why would any sane person deny what is historical fact, if not for an agenda? (That is a rhetorical question)
By your definition are engineering firms also "state run" because their work is subject to inspection and their staff need to be licensed by the state? What about electrical contractors? Law firms? Food processing plants?
You don't understand what a Free Market is or what it looks like. I gave the sources, do the work. If you believe Milton Friedman was wrong I'm happy to listen, but you can't discuss the material.
Everything else you write is trolling, so the conversation is over.
Australia has 7% of the population of the US, so of course your problems would be less frequent. That is a statistical normal and I would not expect otherwise. With the exception of gang and drug related crimes, any shooting makes national news in the US. Within 30 seconds of a report of a gunshot, we have every journalist, politician, and all their cousins immediately blaming and attacking the 2nd amendment on every media outlet possible.
Both sides ignore each others arguments, but I believe much of the pro gun stubbornness is distrust for a corrupt system who immediately attacks citizens owning guns any time something happens while ignoring everything else. Things like mental health, economic problems, or even the source of the guns which are frequently acquired through a black market so repealing the 2nd amendment would have no impact. Let alone, the fact that there are countries who's citizens are way better armed who have less gun crime.
Australia has plenty of problems, so be careful with that finger pointing stuff.
You do not know what a rhetorical question is, and I really don't feel like having to teach you so I won't. Next, whether or not I was around 40+ years ago will not change history. There are countless magazines, newspapers, books, recorded TV shows, etc.. etc... you can use to validate my claim and learn history.
For the third time you are inventing your own argument instead of addressing what I stated very clearly. I said that women have choice and have had choices in careers so the narrative that they have been oppressed out of the job market is simply a fabrication. I stated that society is measuring a woman's success drastically different today from 40 years ago, because today the family is not measured or mentioned.
Finally, you ask for clarification on something instead of inventing your own definition or argument. What do I mean by the State raising kids? Simple really. Parenting time should be equal or better than the State, which would be the combined time of school and daycare. This is especially true for younger kids (1-15/16). Parenting time is not the same as being a guard dog, so don't revert back to inventing things. Women today are pressured into going back to work as quickly as possible after giving birth, meaning that they are giving up parenting and paying the State to parent for them. You claim that they are not run by the State, but who passes and enforces all of the regulations for daycare? The State does run daycare, just like they run schools. So if parenting time is less than time the State spends with the children, the State is raising the child. The parent is racing to cook dinner, clean up, pay bills, fix things that are broken, etc.. This gives an extremely limited demonstration of "life" for the kid, and does not grant very much time for life lessons. In the single parent game (which has grown massively in 4 decades) it's much worse because the parent will have someone competing for that little bit of free time to be a parent.
Unfortunately you go right back to inventing your own version of history for home schooling. Home schooling started because the State run systems are a constant failure (past and present tense). When a parent was home with the kid it was easier to tolerate because of _parenting_. Once both parents were both away from home 45-50 hours a week on average (commute time included) that _parenting_ time was gone and the State run school had no buff. (Of course the single parent family had no 2nd parent). The 4% increase in home schooling is because of good parenting, but came about because the State run services used by the majority are beyond atrocious. 40 years ago that percentage could be zero because the parents were raising the children, not the State.
Oddly you agree with a few of my "concerns" but don't admit that they are real and have been for decades. Economics is a monster to tackle, but you could start by reading Milton Friedman (pick a book, they are all worth while). He was explaining things like why politicians would not fix immigration in the early 70s, and predicted our current trajectory pretty well. He also lays out numerous fixes. You are right that we are far apart on both causes and solutions, but at least I can claim that my opinion is derived from 5 decades of study and education. (Back to your not so rhetorical question "yes" I was around, "yes" I am a parent (met and know thousands of them too)).
First, don't attempt to conflate the red scare with the US society beginning to crumble. I agreed that people started to warn about what was happening in terms of society. "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" was released, we saw how Nixon behaved (illegally) and nothing happened, we had leaks about Operation Mockingbird and MK-Ultra and nobody was held accountable for those programs. We had articles and people starting to warn about the deregulation allowing the start of media monopolization, and the realization that the Vietnam war was not some altruistic action by the US. Those things impacted our society, the Red Scare was (and is) an external threat.
Next, women do have the same choices as men and have had them. I provided numerous reasons why things were different 40+ years ago and stated that the narrative portraying it as a white man's paradise who kept everyone else subjugated is not true. I gave the easiest way for people to determine that the narrative is false, by looking at the proliferation of a single item in today's grocery store.
I also gave a biological difference why there was no choice historically for the woman, except to stay home and maintain the family.
I never stated that women must stay home and have babies, I stated correctly that historically it was normal and honorable. I never said a woman must have kids, I gave reason to ask "Is it better for the state to raise the kid or the parents?" when the choice is made to be a parent. I never said a person was not allowed happiness. I implied that not long ago we understood that sacrifice was a relatively normal thing. Many people still believe those things and many woman _choose_ to stay home and raise the kids for exactly the reasons I described.
So who exactly is not giving women a choice? My narrative includes family as a valid and noble career, and society matched that narrative less than half a century ago. Today society only measures a women by her career and wealth.
It _should_ bother you that your argument requires fabricated narrative like ~women have no choices~ and ~force 1/2 the population to make babies~ in order to have any validity. It _should_ bother you that history and biology must be ignored to support your arguments, and it should bother you that you can't differentiate present and past tense to maintain your position.
That was simply the time at which domestic abuse was acknowledged in our society. Remember, it wasn't until about that time that laws were changed that made it impossible for a man to rape his wife in many states, etc. You're complaining about social progress here.
Amazing how selective memory can be, and how simply you could fix your memory with a small amount of reading. For clarity I am not complaining, I am demonstrating that based on history there is an alternative perspective that does not match the narrative people are told and repeat.
Correcting your complete untrue statement first: Society acknowledged domestic abuse for thousands of years, there was not some revelation that happened in the 70s. It used to be handled differently, and society also acknowledged that abuse was also something a woman could do.
What you completely ignored: The 1970s saw every State pass no fault divorce laws, and advertisements for how great it is for women and kids to be in a divorced marriage. TV shows and advertising told everyone how easy it was for a women to get 1/2 of the assets, custody of the kids, and revenue from child support and alimony just by saying "I am not happy". Not only that, but it was portrayed that everyone became better off after the divorce (happier, wealthier, lots of hotties in the bedroom, etc...). The reality was that the average middle class family who went through divorce turned into two lower middle class households (at least one closer to poverty in many cases), with a large percentage of the assets going to lawyers and government agencies. Rates for psychological treatment for children sky rocketed,and the amount of money handed out by Government for aid programs (Welfare/Food Stamps) increased.
During that same time period, men did not file for divorce because they were unhappy. They would have been laughed out of court because a man was supposed to be a provider, happiness is not a requirement. Men did not run to court for having an abusive wife, he would have been humiliated into silence for being such a weakling (and today still is). A guy would not abuse his wife, for fear his neighbors would beat his ass for being abusive. The trade off from society handling the offense vs. the Government certainly does not fully favor the position of the Government.
Birth rates are well below 2.1 and have been steadily dropping for decades. This means that population is DECLINING. Calling someone a moron when you can not comprehend basic definitions for words is laughable. If you were confused by previous statements you should try harder to read things like "Do the math and calculate how fast it collapses when you have double the population in retirement as you do in more productive areas of society.". Read what is written, not what you want to see. If two or more syllable words are difficult for you, stay on Facebook where you will be in your own league.
Better for society != better for "me". The majority of divorces in the 60s - 80s were not because all these men became abusive. It was because people were brainwashed into thinking their own happiness was more important than anything else. Further, the only way to get happiness in this brainwashing is through buying lots of stuff.
Instead of seeing what you have been brainwashed to believe, actually do some work and use your noggin.
Were people 40 years ago worried that the US was collapsing? That is about the time that people warned of the brain washing going on, so yeah and what they were concerned with has come about. You keep convincing yourself that "ME ME ME" is the best philosophy instead of reading history and having knowledge of the result.
As a start, stop lying about self sufficiency requiring working for someone else for 40+ hours a week for decades. Stop believing that the only reward in life is money. You won't, but I'll still point it out.
Seriously, are you mentally disabled? Do you believe that society was always declining like it is today? Are you attempting to fail to understand basic math in addition to basic and very recent history? How long will society last if families are 1 child and 2 adults exactly? Do the math and calculate how fast it collapses when you have double the population in retirement as you do in more productive areas of society.
Just exactly why do you ask asinine questions that do not modify the facts and opinion being expressed? Those are all rhetorical questions for you to chew on, not to answer here because you lack the intellect and/or honesty to do so.
I know the material, but your explanation is off the mark (perhaps because you are attempting to be politically correct?). The study was related to how men and women choose partners. Men did not focus on the woman's profession, class, or stature to marry. Doctors married waitresses, teachers, bartenders, or other doctors, and of course women without jobs.
Women do not function the same, and tend to date and marry only the same or better social class. A woman doctor will not normally date a male who is not a doctor, and a woman software engineer will not normally date a welder.
That is a symptom of the brain washing we have been under for nearly half a century where material wealth and "self" is the most important things in society.
As a veteran and a person who has worked in IT for Government, Medical,Insurance, Automotive, DOD, and Telecom, I say you are simply wrong. Medical care in the US is not a private market, it's a government controlled monopoly. Having the direct authority for care, like the VA, is simply putting the biggest turd on the top of the pile.
Women being forced and duped into thinking that they have to work in order to be a person is entirely socially generated hysteria and stigma. 40 years ago women did not have "careers" in a workplace because there was little in the way of formula. Meaning if the woman did not stay home and feed the kid, they died of starvation. Since the woman is the only parent with the ability to make milk it made sense for her to make her career in the home. It used to be normal for a woman to help the family save money by being a good cook and manage the budget at home, to sew and knit when time allowed, and to keep the family healthy by keeping the house in good shape. Paying people to cook for you, clean for you, and raise your kids for you COSTS MONEY.
In the last 40 years we there has been a social transition brought about by mass marketing campaigns filled to overflowing with psychological manipulation (we used to call this brain washing). In the 1960s a woman was working because she either could not attract a husband or because her husband could not provide what the family needed. There was sympathy for that poor woman forced into the workplace. Her poor kids would be forced on other people and lack responsible parents at home.
Look where we are today. A society which is slowly crumbling around your feet. Population is declining, wealth disparity is growing at an amazing rate, and people can't tell the truth from a lie. It is trendy to neglect your kids and make them someone else's problem, because family has become disposable.
Women have choice, but have not had choice for as long as idiots like to pretend in order to fill an agenda.. You disliking what they choose does not in any way indicate that they have no choice it indicates that you are simply an ignorant tool.
The medical system is absolutely not market based, unless you are attempting to change the definition of market to be "marketing" and psychological manipulation.
I'm not a full on anarchist because the Government has a role in my opinion. The role is extremely limited in my mind, but does exist. That said, the Government has caused nearly everything else to fail for all but a select few. The Government regulation system is a forced at gunpoint monopoly. If you want to play you have to pay, and if you are not wanted in the game the rules will change to ensure you can't play. This has happened repeatedly through history, and more and more in the last few decades. If you want to sell a widget you need to pay a registration fee to be a widget seller. As soon as your widget cuts into richguy's profits, you not only need to pay for the license but you have to have a person on staff with government certification for widget knowledge, and that certification may take 19 years and specialized precursory degrees to obtain.
The government's role here should be binary. Pass a law allowing or denying the activity. My desires get measured into that decision, but beyond providing the legal status the Government should have no role. The "why" of that is explained very simply. Bob puts out a splice that causes a problem. Do you think anyone else will be buying Bob's splicing? If the market had it's way Bob would have to bake bread or something for a living, not splice genes. However, if the Government certified him Bob would be able to continue on his merry way. It was not Bob's fault, it was a faulty regulation that caused the problem. Bob didn't have the newly required government certified piece of paper, and didn't have the right member of staff which is now in regulations. Form GOV330033-GENE-112L must now be used which saves any confusion for people like "Bob" in the future, right?
Same ole same ole won't make things better, it will only ensure that there is no real market would ever exist.
As to whether or not this should be legal? My well educated opinion says "HELL NO!". Enhanced genetics will ensure that the rich folks get babies that would have the ghosts of Himmler and Hitler creaming all over themselves. "Rich" babies will all be 6' or taller kids with 130+ IQs and the "trendy" bits (blond or brunette, busty or well endowed, blue or green eyed, always tan complexion, etc.. ) included. Anyone below this threshold will be filthy poor people who can't afford the "therapy". Look at how well cosmetic surgery has been for society as a whole, and how the altruistic roots have turned into the cesspool we know and love today.
Yeah, vulnerabilities cost money. If you get hacked you could be put out of business. That means that if you care about your customers and want to stay in business you pay for the right tools and people to ensure you are secure.
How does a Government who can't handle basic things like medical care for Veterans have a better chance of protecting you than a private company who will be out of a job if they are not effective? What is your repercussion against the DHS when they fail and you go under? What penalties will the Government face when it's found that they simply take tax money and claim to scan, but never ran a scanner? Do you really believe that you will get your day in court and have recovery within your lifetime when your business fails? (Ask an American Indian about their experiences with timely recovery of damages).
People demanding "more" government are simply lunatics, often demanding more because they get "free" stuff for now. I can not comprehend the level of delusion required for people to believe that contrary to everything the Government does or has done, we are better off with the Government monopolizing services.
I have no idea who your generalization is supposed to be covering. "Most" people would fall into the original comment. People who are too brainwashed to do anything, or care about anything, that the media does not tell them to do, or care, about. Mindless drones who sit staring at a 2.5x3" screen occasionally banging it with their thumbs. Reading 100 character strings for their life philosophy, and shouting down anyone that disagrees with their 140 character and 2 meme opinion.
I wish that was a scary exaggeration by Alex Jones or something, but sadly it's not. I have a kid in the UC system, relatives in U of Michigan Ann Arbor, and the last few places I work has built in social media systems with as many SJWs as you can find on Reddit's worst thread.
There is a minority of people that read and study beyond main stream media. Those people were pissed about the NSA dirt but had ideas ahead of time that it was happening. Those people were pissed about torture sites but had suspicions. We knew the wars in the middle east were based on fabrications, but we know what Eurasia is. There may be a majority of this extreme minority who would be frightened to speak publicly (I'm a skeptic but would be okay with this generalization).